G4li TAOR SKOOSHKRO 



Synonymy. NfituirLf: -- Tlu' ,s]H'ci<'s dfall willi liv iiic ;ilnivt' is (loscribcd lioin s|)((iinciis (aiight 



(iff tin- west coast oi Swinlcn. It serins to iin' |iiactically certain lliat it is identical with ('. 

 obtmata, G. (). Sahs. 1865. It is tiiie that the original description ol the latter species is very 

 incomplete, hut for much the Siinie reasons as have been ])ut forward on p. (531 above in tin- 

 cjise of C. elegaiut it appears to be (juite sufficient for certainty of identification. 



This species was at first referred by G. 0. Sars to the genus Uonchoeda; in a later work 

 by this wTitcr, 1890, however, it was transferred to the genus Hd/oq/prix. This alteration, 

 presumably made undt>r the inihience of a statement in the same direction by ('. Claus, 1874 a, 

 p. 178, and only expHcable, of course, as being due to G. 0. Sars's slight knowh'dge of tlie 

 differences between these two genera, has quite correctly been set aside by other writers. 



Tlie following names included in the list of synonyms given above are without descrij)tions 

 and veriticatory figures: G. 0. Sars, 1890; E. VaxhOfkeN, 1897; 0. NORDGAARD, 1899; P. T. 

 ChEYE, 1903; P. T. ClEVE and U. PeTTERSSON, 1903; Til. 8(:OTT, 1905; ('. H. OSTENKELD, 

 1906; E. KOEFOED, 1907; C. H. OSTENFELD and C. WeSENBERG-LUND, 1909; C. Al'STEIN, 1911; 

 E. JOrgensEiN, 1912 and K. Stephensen, 1913. They are included in the list in question in 

 spite of this, because they all refer to finds from regions in which this species is known for 

 certain to exist. I was able to verify one of these statements myself by a re-examination of the 

 original material; this was that of P. T. Cleve, 1903 {=- P. T. Cleve and 0. PettbrssON, 1903). 

 G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman's description, 1896, is based on some specimens fiom 

 the coast of Norway, determined by G. 0. Sars. 



G. W. MCLler's description, 1901, which is apparently based on the same specimens as 

 formed the basis of E. Vamioffex's information, 1897, may be said to be sufficient for certainty 

 of identification. 



It may also be considered as quite certain that this was the form dealt with by V. VAvRA, 

 1906. Are we to refer the most southerly finds in this author's work to this species as well? 

 On the other hand it did not seem to me proper to include in the above list of synonyms 

 Conchoecia obtusata, G. S. Brady, 1868 b, p. 470 (= the same writer, 1868 a, p. 128). The 

 figure, pi. XLI, fig. 9, with which this author illustrates this find shows an organism of so peculiar 

 a type that it seems to me quite impossible to identify it (= OstracodV). This uncertainty on 

 the part of this writer has also prevented me from including C. obtusata, G. S. Brady and 

 D. Robertson, 1872, p. 70 as a synonym either. Nor has C. obtusata, A. M. NORMAN, 1869, 

 pp. 256, 257, 260 and 295 been included; with regard to this find, which is presumably the same 

 as was the basis of G. S. Brady's information, 1868 a and b, the first -mentioned writer says 

 (p. 295): ,,A single imperfect Conchoecia, believed to belong to this species . . . ." 

 Differences between It jg true that there are a number of small differences to be noted between the descriptions 



"lhos7'of^ revious °^ ^^^^ species worked out by preceding writers and the information given by me above, but it 

 authors. does not seem to me necessary to discuss these in any detail. Most of them are presumably 



due to lack of accuracy on the part of the previous writers. 

 I'roportion between There is SO far no information in the literature as to the proportion between males and 



n,aUs and females, fg^-^^j^g j^ ^^ds species. In the material from Skager Rak investigated by me the males were in 

 most cases rather considerably fewer than the females. Thiis in a sample from Koster there 



